2026 model cars will have a government mandated kill switch

for the fire dept.?

I'll skip right to the '27's

 

Meh.

Not gonna click that bait.
We have people assaulting cops because they don't think that the feds have the right to enforce the nation's freekin borders - and now they want us to believe that there are or soon will be 'kill' switches in cars.

That's patently false.
Heck....I wish it WERE true!
I've been an electronics tech since the plate voltage days and I would LOVE to know how such one of these secret squirrel devices work!
It would be somewhat simple to develop a kill-kill switch and I would love to be the first one to make a 'how to' video and be the next Yoo-Tube Zillionaire.

I can see it now.....

"He ain't stoppin'! Mash 'at button AGAIN Earl!!!"
"Alm MASHIN It!!!!... It ain't WORKIN' Bubba!!"
"Dang it! We're just gone have to ram him!"
"Nah....look! Its one of them 'lectric cars. He'll be out of juice in a coupla miles...."

 

or, at any rate, they may be clinging to some quaint outmoded notion that if the feds are going to do that 'enforcement' within the nation's freekin borders, they oughtta do it in compliance with the nation's freekin constitution.

 

This law simply can't go into force this year, because NHTSA hasn't yet issued the rules describing the requirements. From KBB's fact check article on this:

"Among other things, the law required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to write new rules requiring automakers to install anti-drunken-driving technology in new cars within five years after passage.

The law’s text is relatively short. It tells the agency to require a “passive system” that:

• “monitors a driver’s performance to identify impairment of a driver”
• “passively detects a blood alcohol level equal to and exceeding .08 blood alcohol content”
• Or, “detects impairment and prevents or limits vehicle operation”

NHTSA Hasn’t Done Anything Yet

• The agency is late with writing the rules.

Congress passes laws. Agencies like NHTSA write regulations that explain the specifics of how those laws will be carried out.

When an agency writes a new regulation, it must post drafts for public comment, allow time for the public to respond, and then finalize them.

To date, NHTSA has not posted a draft. Congress gave the agency five years to complete the rule, but required a draft in 2024. No draft has been published.

In a 2024 report to Congress, the agency said it was “working diligently” on a rule.

Rumors Say It’s Much More Than Anti-Drunken-Driving Tech

• Social media users and some politicians have suggested that it would give the government remote control of cars.

Social media rumors began circulating in recent weeks, fixated on the term “kill switch.” Rumors suggest the measure would give the government the ability to deactivate cars remotely.

That prompted some House members to attempt to repeal the HALT Drunk Driving Act last week, but the effort failed.

Politicians have adopted that claim. Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) posted on X that the measure would “ensure the government can shut off your car whenever it wants.”

The law arguably creates a kill switch — the technology would let a car deactivate itself if a system determined that the driver was likely impaired. It does not create a kill switch that anyone outside the vehicle could control.

Some privacy advocates worry, however, ..."

 

Oh.....NOW you're worried about Federal over-reach?!?!

• Student Loan Debt: The administration was accused of attempting to cancel student loan debts without clear Congressional authorization.
• Ministry Of Truth and Censorship: A federal judge ruled the administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to remove COVID-19 misinformation.
• Immigration Policy: The Supreme Court ruled against the administration's attempt to terminate the "Remain in Mexico" policy, finding it was not in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Vaccine Mandates: Federal courts blocked mandates for private businesses, calling them an overreach of federal power.
• Environmental Regulations: The Supreme Court restricted the EPA's authority to regulate emissions in West Virginia v. EPA, affecting the administration's climate agenda.
• Equal Rights Amendment (ERA): In early 2025, President Biden stated the ERA was part of the Constitution despite it missing the ratification deadline

 

Look for it any time after they finish a rule for what makes a legal LED headlight retrofit bulb.

 

Every time someone tries to reign in drunk driving, the drunk’s spread fud to try and prevent it so they can continue with their slaughter

 

Cashless bail?

Funny you use DUI as an example.
I try to be a good and faithful servant and I believe in redemption but every time I see arrest records for DUI second, third, fourth with no jail time I know what I know.
When I was knocking holes in the ocean for my Uncle in 1988, the deadliest DUI crash in the US happened in my part of the US.
27 dead, and 34 wounded - mostly by burn injury.

It was his second DUI.

To the horror of some of the survivors, the driver was released from jail after serving nine and a half years of a 16-year sentence, and was immediately eligible for a driver's license.

I do not pretend that the victims would have been any better off if the drunk driver had served a longer term - or even life, or been banned from driving for life.
HOWEVER (comma!!!!)
Had he been punished more severely the FIRST TIME......maybe there would not have been a second time.

 

... and even the Supreme Court flip-flops, as three of the justices who invented the "major questions doctrine" in West Virginia v. EPA, and used it again on the Student Loan Debt case, claimed this new doctrine didn't apply to Friday's tariff decision, while other justices that didn't use it in the previous cases, did apply it Friday.

 

Concur.
I would have been delighted with a 9-0 vote.
I cannot fathom why the three holdouts got this one wrong, but I haven't plumbed the murky depths of the opinion - because I don't HAVE TO.
This is a case where two thirds of the court affirmed the complete validity of the MQD, and you just cited one of the better applications of this principle.
They got it right.

The REASON that this decision gets the 'golf clap' treatment from the far left is the same reason that most normies presume that an "auto kill switch" would be something that a Gavin Newsome administration would pull out of their backsides.
Somebody cited an imaginary world where a future AOC administration would ban all cars because they were bad for the planet.

We don't have to imagine a world like that!!!
US Senate blocks California's electric car mandate in historic vote - CalMatters
And No.
I don't normally like it when the Fed blocks states from being states either!
HOWEVER.....looking back, it is not without historical precedence.
It's the national equivalent of corporal punishment - still legal in 17 US states.
If they would have paddled South Carolina and put them in time out in 1832 after their Ordinance of Nullification, maybe we could have 'soft landed' the whole slavery thing instead of nearly ripping the nation apart.

Fun Fact - SC declared the federal Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional, void, and nonbinding within the state - something ELSE that is still somewhat relevant today....

 

Give me a challenge PLZ!

An operating system programmer, I spoofed the O{2} sensors on my 2003 Prius to improve winter efficiency using an MSRP-430 microcontroller. I let the catalytic converter not trigger converter heat-up cycles after it had reached operating temperature. But I could have spoofed a missing converter if I’d wanted.

I have two EVs that will last me as long as I want short of an incapacitating accident. As for the law, I’m pretty sure an “executive memo” royal edict has already undone it.

Like the “Bell the Hybrid” act, more toothless than useful in practice. Teslas sounding like a science fiction movie in the parking lot … hilarious.

If you’re really scared of it, tell an 11 year old they can drive the car if they will put in a kill the kill switch and a $20 bill. Just another IQ test.

Bob Wilson

 

That's how I treated the A.S.S. feature as described in another thread.
(only it was $5 worth of Harbor Freight stuff.....)

 

That’s why we need vehicles that can’t be started by drunks, because politicians are afraid to lock them up for good

 

Start treating it like the violent crime that it is and you don't have to worry about useless, easily defeated interlocks.
You don't even have to jail them.
Custodial jewelry would suffice for follow-on offenses.

 

They have the capability. Steering, brakes, engine, it's all electronic now. It runs through the stereo head unit where it connects to a network (internet). Maybe you could disable it by disconnecting the stereo unless they have the main ECU configured to not start if that's disconnected. Michael Hastings an independent investigative reporter digging dirt on Obama driving a new BMW had a high speed fatal accident in a residential area, like the throttle stuck wide open and he hit a tree. The week before he said there were threats on his life. And the conspiracy theory was they took remote control of his car.

 

but that would have happened by now, if it were going to happen. so let's proceed with something that might work.

 

Any chance that is related to the TI MSP430 series of microcontrollers?

MSP430™ MCU design & development | TI.com

 

There is no magic diet pill for DUI that can be installed into cars - especially in the freedom-loving US.
Heck!
We don't even do red-light cameras and photo speed enforcement!

The best 'crowd-sourced' solutions seem to involve lower BACs and disincentivizing drivers from follow-on offenses.
Note: The info below is from a law office - so, of course it's sketch.
Example: France really does have a law requiring a breathalyzer in your car but following the 'yellow vest' uprising they don't fine people for not having one - and they do not require the ignition interlock that you're thinking about, so you don't have to get your kid to blow into it.

Source: THINK AMERICAS DUI PENALTIES ARE TOUGH? TRY THESE COUNTRIES!
THINK AMERICAS DUI PENALTIES ARE TOUGH? TRY THESE COUNTRIES!
In some small towns in Turkey, if your BAC is above 0.05%, you’re driven 20 miles out of town and are forced to walk back to the police station, escorted by the officers driving next to you.

In France, the legal BAC limit is 0.05%. You must have a Breathalyzer in your car. In fact, there’s a fine for not having one.

Denmark’s legal BAC limit is 0.05%. After repeat offenses, your vehicle is impounded.

In Ukraine, the legal BAC limit is 0.02%. So, one drink will do it. If you have multiple DUIs, your license is permanently revoked.

Australia’s legal BAC limit ranges from zero tolerance to 0.05%, depending on the province. Australia uses public shaming as a punishment for a DUI. In addition to fines and possible jail time, all the names of offenders are published in the local newspapers under the headline “He’s Drunk and in Jail.” Side note – police officers in Australia can pull anyone over to administer a BAC test. They don’t need a traffic violation or other probable cause to stop you.

In Brazil, a BAC between 0.01% and 0.06% gets you a fine and one year license suspension. Anything above 0.06 is considered a criminal offense and deals much more severe consequences.

China’s legal BAC limit is 0.02%. The punishment for having a BAC higher than 0.02% includes jail time, fines, and a potential license suspension of up to 5 years. If you caused an accident with casualties, you’re sentenced to death.
If you’re married and living in Malaysia, a BAC of 0.05% gets both you and your spouse thrown in jail.

Singapore’s legal BAC limit is 0.08%. The punishment includes a reasonable fine- the equivalent of $150 US dollars. Oh, and flogging.

Japan has a zero tolerance policy. In addition to fines and jail time, if you caused an accident with casualties, you lose your license for life. Drivers aren’t the only ones punished for a DUI. If you’re a passenger in a drunk driver’s car, you also receive a fine.

In South Africa, having a BAC higher than 0.05% (0.02% if you drive a taxi) gets you jail time, possible license suspension, and a hefty fine of the equivalent of $11,000 US dollars.

Costa Rica’s legal BAC limit is 0.075%. To stop you from driving again, the police will remove the license plates from your car.

Bulgaria’s legal BAC limit is 0.05%. After your second conviction, you’re sentenced to death.

However, no country’s punishment is as severe as El Salvador’s. First time DUI offender? Sorry. You’re going straight to the firing squad.



The lesson? Don’t drink and drive in any country. (Especially in El Salvador.)

 

Technology isn’t magic, but just keep saying it can’t be done and some will believe you.
Freedom is an interesting word, meaning different things to different people.
I’d prefer to be free from getting hit by a drunk driver